Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40033306›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Practical applications of methods to incorporate patient preferences into medical decision models: a scoping review.

Jakub Fusiak, Kousha Sarpari, Inger Ma, Ulrich Mansmann, Verena S Hoffmann

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jakub FusiakThe Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Bavaria, Germany. jakub.fusiak@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.
Kousha SarpariThe Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Inger MaThe Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Ulrich MansmannThe Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Verena S HoffmannThe Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GP220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlgorithms and models increasingly support clinical and shared decision-making. However, they may be limited in effectiveness, accuracy, acceptance, and comprehensibility if they fail to consider patient preferences. Addressing this gap requires exploring methods to integrate patient preferences into model-based clinical decision-making.

objectivesThis scoping review aimed to identify and map applications of computational methods for incorporating patient preferences into individualized medical decision models and to report on the types of models where these methods are applied. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review includes articles without restriction on publication date or language, focusing on practical applications. It examines the integration of patient preferences in models for individualized clinical decision-making, drawing on diverse sources, including both white and gray literature, for comprehensive insights.

methodsFollowing the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted across databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, National Technical Reports Library, and the first 20 pages of Google Scholar. Keywords related to patient preferences, medical models, decision-making, and software tools guided the search strategy. Data extraction and analysis followed the JBI framework, with an explorative analysis.

resultsFrom 7074 identified and 7023 screened articles, 45 publications on specific applications were reviewed, revealing significant heterogeneity in incorporating patient preferences into decision-making tools. Clinical applications primarily target neoplasms and circulatory diseases, using methods like Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and statistical models, often combining approaches. Studies show that incorporating patient preferences can significantly impact treatment decisions, underscoring the need for shared and personalized decision-making.

conclusionThis scoping review highlights a wide range of approaches for integrating patient preferences into medical decision models, underscoring a critical gap in the use of cohesive frameworks that could enhance consistency and clinician acceptance. While the flexibility of current methods supports tailored applications, the limited use of existing frameworks constrains their potential. This gap, coupled with minimal focus on clinician and patient engagement, hinders the real-world utility of these tools. Future research should prioritize co-design with clinicians, real-world testing, and impact evaluation to close this gap and improve patient-centered care.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDecision Support TechniquesPatient PreferenceDecision Making, SharedHumansDecision-makingKey conceptsMedical decision modelsPatient preferencesScoping review

Identifiers

PMID40033306
PMCPMC11877743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.